Gas prices may very well tank...

[Prrkitty]

... just like the tech industry and housing market did...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/tully_oil_bust.fortune/index.htm

It's just a matter of when...

[Russ]

I hope it goes down before I start driving. $4 a gallon is just ridiculous.

[elise]

and still you aren"t paying that much
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/01/news/international/usgas_price/index.htm?cnn=yes
we would be very happy with the prices you have ;)

[Breaker]

I hope it goes down before I start driving. $4 a gallon is just ridiculous.

don't count on it.

[Revfan9]

As long as the majority of car drivers are running their cars on it and unless they find a new Saudi Arabia every few years, Gas Prices are going to continue to rise.

It's basic economics. As long as the supply stays low and the demand stays high, prices will continue to rise. This isn't going to change until either supply spikes due to new oil discoveries, or demand drops due to everyone switching over to Hydrogen/Ethanol/etc. based transportation.

[bigjoe]

I don't think oil will be tanking any time soon.

http://bigjoesquests.googlepages.com/oiltank.gif
He isn't ready. Look at him, he doesn't even have any armor on. You're better off with a Corn Stalk Paladin.

[Cloral]

As long as the majority of car drivers are running their cars on it and unless they find a new Saudi Arabia every few years, Gas Prices are going to continue to rise.

It's basic economics. As long as the supply stays low and the demand stays high, prices will continue to rise. This isn't going to change until either supply spikes due to new oil discoveries, or demand drops due to everyone switching over to Hydrogen/Ethanol/etc. based transportation.

The points of the article were this:

1) High oil prices have sparked the exploitation of new oil sources such as oil shales in the midwest.
2) Oil subsidies in places like China are producing artificially high demand because the cost isn't being passed on to the consumer. It is expected that these subsidies won't last since they cost the government a lot of money.

So what they're saying is production is increasing while a global demand cooling is likely. This would result in a global surplus of oil, creating a buyer's market. Certainly the argument assumes a few things, but all in all it isn't totally unreasonable. At the very least the speculative market for oil has created an inflated price that can't last forever.

[moocow]

I paid $50 to fill up my Alero today :(

$50 fucking dollars!!!!!!!

*cries*

[phattonez]

I don't pay for gas because I don't drive. I suggest everyone use a bike to get to work.

[moocow]

I don't pay for gas because I don't drive. I suggest everyone use a bike to get to work.

I could do that no problem. I live a whole mile from my job. But it's not driving to work that uses up my gas, it's picking up and dropping off my son everyday. I can't transport him that far on a bicycle. It's just not safe.

[Beldaran]

I use my bike for going to school, but I can't use it for my other errands. I can't take it to the grocery store because I wouldn't be able to carry my groceries, and the grocery store would be a 45 minute 1-way bike ride from my house, and I can't spare 1.5 hours every time I go to the store. My wife can't ride her bike to work because a) it would be really far and b) Waco is not a safe place to go riding your bike around.

[phattonez]

And that's just a problem with the way our cities were planned. You're pretty much forced to drive to get your errands done. In Europe, all of the things that you need are relatively close to you, so you can just walk there if you want. Good luck finding that in American cities.

[AtmaWeapon]

I sure am glad I drive a small car that gets decent mileage.

Also why do people use price per tank as the metric for measuring how much it cost to fill up their car? Wouldn't per gallon or per week make a smarter metric? My car and my wife's car get within 3 or 4 mpg of each other, yet it costs ~$50 to fill up her car and ~$35 to fill up my car. The difference? My tank has a pathetic tank that holds between 11 and 12 gallons and hers has more like 15. Should I call her car wasteful because it costs more to fill it up? Honestly her car takes a few days longer to need a refill, so it ends up costing almost the same to run both cars. A Prius gets 10 or 15 more mpg than I do, probably significantly more than that since I do a lot of city driving. But I bet its tank still costs somewhere between $40 and $60 to fill.

So why do we act so surprised that a giant truck with a 30-gallon tank costs around $100 to refill? It's not the cost of the refill that counts, it's the frequency, and the important factors here are miles driven and miles per gallon.

I'd use a bike but it's an 8-mile drive to work down 4-lane highways. I see bicyclists riding down the road all the time but it's going to take some awful high prices to make me spend three times as long getting to work while 2 feet away from the equivalent of giant metal hammers flying by me. Also, when I bought a car, I bought something that would use fuel fairly economically, as opposed to something I thought might impress other people with its bulk. I'm sorry but I hate everything about people driving gigantic trucks that make it impossible for me to safely back out of parking spaces and it's about time they started paying for their sins :mad:

[MasterSwordUltima]

Vespa = $5 to fill the tank. Tank takes about 1.5 gallons or so, and it runs me about a month or atleast 3/4 of a month.

Jeep Grand Cherokee = $70 to fill the tank. Lasts about the same, but offers complete coverage and tons more room.

[MoonCheese]

I think people should stop using private cars altogether. I never got a driving licence and don't plan to. Cities everywhere should be set up so that you can walk, ride a bicycle, and use buses, subways, and trains.

[elise]

And that's just a problem with the way our cities were planned. You're pretty much forced to drive to get your errands done. In Europe, all of the things that you need are relatively close to you, so you can just walk there if you want. Good luck finding that in American cities.
Thre are many little places here like in the us where are some shops but they just don't have everything , for that you need to go to the City's , it isn't that different believe me . My husband when he has to go to his work it's at least an hour drive away and that is when there isn't traffic jam .
The only difference is that our bigger city's are closer here then in the US but still to far a way to walk :D

[AtmaWeapon]

I think people should stop using private cars altogether. I never got a driving licence and don't plan to. Cities everywhere should be set up so that you can walk, ride a bicycle, and use buses, subways, and trains.Good luck finding the multiple billions of dollars that would cost. It's a good thought, but think about what it would cost to restructure a city like Dallas with a few million people, several thousand of which you'd have to displace to redesign the roads, install subways, etc.

[ShadowTiger]

Sounds like New York City. I see people walking faster than cars there all the time. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen more than one gas station in the entire city, if I can even remember whether that one gas station was a hallucination based on how hot it can get in the summer. Sure, there are lots of cars there, but there are far, far more pedestrians.

Depends on the city, obviously. New York City is a walking city.

[phattonez]

^^Surely you're talking about Manhattan and not the rest of the city which is just as car-dependent as the rest of the nation?

[biggiy05]

I don't pay for gas because I don't drive. I suggest everyone use a bike to get to work.

Yes let me ride a bike to work. In the 35-40 minutes it takes me to drive it will take me how many hours on a bike?


And that's just a problem with the way our cities were planned. You're pretty much forced to drive to get your errands done. In Europe, all of the things that you need are relatively close to you, so you can just walk there if you want. Good luck finding that in American cities.

You forgot about people that live in rural areas. I love living in the country and even though gas prices still go up I'm still driving into town. I just stop and do my errands after work.



I think people should stop using private cars altogether. I never got a driving licence and don't plan to. Cities everywhere should be set up so that you can walk, ride a bicycle, and use buses, subways, and trains.

Like I said above. Rural areas. It will be nearly impossible to convince everyone to stop driving cars and walk/bike everywhere.

[ZTC]

I couldn't have put bigguy's post any better myself. On a similar note, why are gas prices here being compared to other countries? Many of the european countries tax the shit out of the gas. It's part of why it's so high over ther.

[rock_nog]

I am oddly reminded of this old Disney cartoon predicting the future of transportation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S18LCISRm4&eurl=http://www.videosift.com/video/Disneys-Future-Of-Transportation-From-1950

[AtmaWeapon]

Sounds like New York City. I see people walking faster than cars there all the time. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen more than one gas station in the entire city, if I can even remember whether that one gas station was a hallucination based on how hot it can get in the summer. Sure, there are lots of cars there, but there are far, far more pedestrians.

Depends on the city, obviously. New York City is a walking city.You named one city that has actually done a decent job (at least in parts of it, as suggested by someone else). My point was that not all major metropolitan areas were designed this way, and changing the design now will involve billions of dollars of effort. I don't think many people feel it'd be worth the effort.

I feel like the market will balance itself. There is some magic number at which many people will make an honest effort at using less gas. This means buying fuel-efficient cars rather than putting the tailgate down in the truck, and it means using the car instead of the truck for going to town. It means planning the grocery trips so that you make one a week and visiting the closest store, rather than hopping in the F-350 and driving to the store on the other side of town because it has the brand of beer you like. It means spending weekends and evenings at home rather than cruising around looking for something to do. It means taking the fart pipe off of your stupid ricemobile and gently accelerating after stopping. In general, America is not doing many of these things, which means that the price of gas is wholly appropriate for our stupid spending needs. When people switch to serious gasoline conservation, the people setting the prices will see overwhelming supply with dwindling demand; their only choice will be to reduce the price to encourage idiots to go buy that used Hummer. The only part I'm not certain about is how the increased demand from India and China is affecting the market; it could be supply is not as plentiful as I thought, but my dad who works at a refinery seems to feel like we've got plenty of oil.

An alternative to this is people will get mad and shovel money they used to spend on gas into serious research into alternative fuels. You can thumb your nose at this and discuss how impossible it is all you want, but in 1957 the government told NASA, "We have to beat the Russians!", and in 1969 we put a man on the moon. In 12 years we went from, "We have rockets that can sometimes make it to space" to, "We can reliably send human beings to space and bring them back." Personally, I feel like there's no limit to what this country's scientific programs can accomplish given a decade of total support by the government and the people. If we'd quit saying, "Someone needs to do something" and start giving money to people who can do something, it'd get done.

[Beldaran]

It means taking the fart pipe off of your stupid ricemobile and gently accelerating after stopping.


I just spit out my juice laughing. Bloody brilliant.



An alternative to this is people will get mad and shovel money they used to spend on gas into serious research into alternative fuels. You can thumb your nose at this and discuss how impossible it is all you want, but in 1957 the government told NASA, "We have to beat the Russians!", and in 1969 we put a man on the moon. In 12 years we went from, "We have rockets that can sometimes make it to space" to, "We can reliably send human beings to space and bring them back." Personally, I feel like there's no limit to what this country's scientific programs can accomplish given a decade of total support by the government and the people. If we'd quit saying, "Someone needs to do something" and start giving money to people who can do something, it'd get done.

Total, absolute agreement.

[Pineconn]

Also, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, 3.56 million gallons of gas are wasted each day because of under-inflated tires. This translates to a waste of about $14.2 million each day.

In agreeance with AtmaWeapon, people simply need to be more responsible. Check your tires, air filter, or whatever else that could affect gas mileage (e.g., drive slower). Blaming the government or the president will get nothing done. Having this said, I drive a Pontiac Vibe, which could get 36 MPG highway.

[Archibaldo]

I give it about 5 years tops until we're completely, what's the word I'm looking for, independent from gas. Does that make sense. It's the opposite of being dependent but it doesn't sound right.

Any way, already we have hybrids, sure right now they're expensive as fuck, but like Atma pointed out if we can go from sending a man to the moon to sending people back forth into space in 12 years. I say by 2015 we will be 100% gas free.

[erm2003]

This is as long as the oil companies don't go and buy out the companies developing alternative fuel engines. I am sure it has happened several times already. They have to do what they can to protect their money and future.

[phattonez]

I say by 2015 we will be 100% gas free.

We won't get there so quickly. Maybe in cars, but not for energy. And we will always be dependent on oil, but that's for different reasons.

[Cloral]

This means buying fuel-efficient cars rather than putting the tailgate down in the truck, and it means using the car instead of the truck for going to town.

Ironically, putting the tailgate down actually decreases fuel efficiency.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Dodge-777/Tailgate-fuel-efficiency.htm

[AtmaWeapon]

Hahaha I like that one guy's response to it; it's basically all "You come in here with your high fallutin' statistics and engineers. I have freedom. I'm gonna leave my tailgate down and you can just go criticize someone else."

[Cloral]

Heh, didn't even notice that until you pointed it out. Basically he got called out on giving out bad advice and rather than admit his mistake he got mad. A nice, old-fashioned, small-penis response. :)

Incidentally as a counter to my argument comes news that South Korea is going to start subsidizing fuel purchases as well, so the trend is going in the wrong direction right now.

[biggiy05]

It means taking the fart pipe off of your stupid ricemobile and gently accelerating after stopping.

Sig material.

[rock_nog]

Y'know, electric cars are actually a lot more efficient than internal combustion engines. Even if we still burn coal to generate electricity, it takes a lot less coal burned to generate enough electricity to power a car than it does gasoline to power an internal combustion engine. The reason behind it is that in producing energy in bulk, you can do it a lot more efficiently than trying to generate energy in a way that fits inside a car (to put it another way, you sacrifice a lot of efficiency in making a power generator that is small enough to be portable). The long and the short of it is, if they can work out the issue of batteries, electric cars promise to be a lot cheaper to operate, and a lot less polluting.

[AtmaWeapon]

Why do we always talk like coal is the only means of generating electricity? Nuclear power's a lot safer than it used to be, and it's way better than coal. Random studies I've found from time to time seem to suggest we lose more coal miners annually than the projected number of people that would be affected by having more nuclear plants, though you can take that with a grain of salt since I have no official source to cite.

My only guess is the waste is more tricky to get rid of than the supporters would have me believe.

[phattonez]

It's only tricky because people in Nevada are worried about their groundwater. Otherwise we have a great landfill ready for nuclear waste.

[Cloral]

There's huge roadblocks to getting a new plant built. I heard that with all the red tape it takes something like 20 years to go through approval and finish building it.